NationStates

Greetings,

Please consider the following hypothetical:

Would you take 3 million USD in exchange for allowing the immediate and irreversible extinction of pandas globally?

If you take the deal, you get 3 million USD immediately (no strings attached), however... all pandas will immediately vanish. If you don't take the deal, you get nothing but the pandas get to live happily ever after for now.

By all pandas, I mean ALL PANDAS. So all the variations of pandas, all of them whether they are in a zoo, kept illegally as a pet, or in the wilderness on any continent anywhere on the planet. If you take the deal, there will not be a SINGLE ONE of those black and white things on the face of the planet. I have no doubt that many tears will be shed.

Here are some facts about the ecological and economic value of pandas:

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endange ... ant_panda/
https://onekindplanet.org/animal/panda-giant/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda

What do you say? Would you take the deal?

I can do a lot with 3 million...

Fuck Pandas, money please. They are basically gone anyway and I'm tired of seeing news casts on baby Pandas.

Pandas are my favorite animal!!! And bunnies, and puppies, and... Well, cuteness is good and extremely important in general! So no, cuteness must be preserved at all costs.

Nah. I can get money other ways. I could never unextinct the giant panda.

Ifreann wrote:Nah. I can get money other ways. I could never unextinct the giant panda.

Yes that is true. What you do (if you take the deal) cannot be undone.

Ifreann wrote:Nah. I can get money other ways. I could never unextinct the giant panda.

But you could. Take the 3 mil, make a bunch more money with it and clone pandas back into existence. Then you'll be famous and rich.

I'll take the money. Maybe PETA could finally put work towards protecting animals besides just the cute and furry ones.

I would just take the money. Who gives a shit about Panda ? Regular bears are cuter, anyway.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Nah. I can get money other ways. I could never unextinct the giant panda.

But you could. Take the 3 mil, make a bunch more money with it and clone pandas back into existence. Then you'll be famous and rich.

Or I could not take the money and we'd have a more diverse, living gene pool from which to clone pandas.

You're essentially asking me whether preference for a private good (lots of cash) trumps a preference for a public good (pandas).

To which the answer is, as any economics professor would tell you, "basically always and forever".

Ifreann wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
But you could. Take the 3 mil, make a bunch more money with it and clone pandas back into existence. Then you'll be famous and rich.

Or I could not take the money and we'd have a more diverse, living gene pool from which to clone pandas.

its gonna take more than 3 million dollars to achieve the cloning operation I feel

Galloism wrote:You're essentially asking me whether preference for a private good (lots of cash) trumps a preference for a public good (pandas).

To which the answer is, as any economics professor would tell you, "basically always and forever".

I dunno. Maybe there are some hard core environmentalists out there...

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Galloism wrote:You're essentially asking me whether preference for a private good (lots of cash) trumps a preference for a public good (pandas).

To which the answer is, as any economics professor would tell you, "basically always and forever".

I dunno. Maybe there are some hard core environmentalists out there...

Hence the word "basically".

I'll just take the money.

The panda can just get revived at some other point in time provided genetic luddites don't take over, in which case I'd still prefer the money.

Can I get another 3 million if I can pick another species to go extinct?

Galloism wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
I dunno. Maybe there are some hard core environmentalists out there...

Hence the word "basically".

interesting though, it says 50 50 for now in poll... too many environmentalists here?

People who put wealth ahead of the welfare of this planet and its animals (and trees, air, water etc.) are the reason we're in the process of destroying this planet on a daily basis.

F*ck the money.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Galloism wrote:Hence the word "basically".

interesting though, it says 50 50 for now in poll... too many environmentalists here?

There's an interesting effect in people:

When presented with hypotheticals, they often say they will do what they would like to think of themselves doing rather than what they would actually do. When actually faced with the prospect of being instantly rich, their morals often waver.

Not all people, of course, but many. No one grew up expecting to become an embezzler, for instance.

Could I please lose 3 million dollars in exchange for the panda population increasing exponentially?

But if I had to choose, no thanks.

I don't think I'd choose either. The most valuable thing in this scenario is probobly the leverage that comes from having the option open.

I'm tired of rewarding China for its mistakes, show me the money!

Pandas for fiat currency? Nah, I prefer gold or diamonds... Though killing a panda...

Cuprum wrote:Pandas for fiat currency? Nah, I prefer gold or diamonds...

What about currency for Fiat Pandas? It had to be done!

On the hand, total elimination of a unique asset in exchange for a wealth of a common asset is ideologically anathema to my ideals.

On the other hand, my ideals are not held by most, and it is likely the unique asset is on it's way to total elimination anyway...